L
lerapt78
Guest
This is more in line with what I had always thought.Apparently a single neighborhood does not a national average make.
According to a CDC report I found here, **the average has declined from 3.5 children per woman in the 1950s to less than 2 now. ** By the way, this is only one of the many “achievements” in public health listed in this report, such as abortion on demand and government funding for contraception.
Way to go America…![]()
I agree with what you have written, which is why I sensed a contradiction between your observance of 2-children families in the 50’s versus the families of today. If families of generations before typically had more than 2 children (which I thought they did), then your argument against birth control is valid.The birth control of last resort is abortion and there is good evidence that many women have used it for that purpose. So the issue is not fertility - it is preventing fertility or inhibiting it.
christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042
Since over 54 million babies have been murdered since 1973, it’s quite obvious what the problem is.
The current population of the United States is over 300 million.
In 1955, it was around 166 million.
There is another deeply imbedded problem that all Catholics should pray and work to solve.
nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?pagewanted=all
Peace,
Ed
If however, your observance of 2-children families decades ago was a indication of a general trend, then the argument that birth control has lowered the size of families wouldn’t be accurate though, would it?
Sorry if I misread your statement, it just confused me. Perhaps you meant that women in the 50’s limited their number of children to 2 via NFP, as opposed to contraception?